When I first began visiting the chateau, it was with the intention of discrediting what the great magnate wrote because I didn't want it to be true.

Over time, the scales fell from my eyes. Instead of cucking at windmills as had been my wont, I began incorporating the hard truths laid bare there. My life--and my marriage--are better for it.

The god of biomechanics laughs at your four pedestals. Game isn't inherently 'good' or 'evil'. It's a tool--or set of tools, really--that can be used to further a wide array of objectives. We win by playing better than our opponents, not by taking our ball and going home.

23 comments:

When I first began visiting the chateau, it was with the intention of discrediting what the great magnate wrote because I didn't want it to be true.

That sounds familiar. In my case, even after I grudgingly accepted the facts of the matter, I never considered applying them until I observed Vox Day address the issue from a Christian angle. It never occurred to me that it was just a set of tools for persuasion and it was up to me to use them morally.

For now, I still vaguely recall the feeing (the horror) that Game dehumanized women, and giving up the ideal of being loved idealistically. But only vaguely. Reality is so much more pleasant than delusion.

It's pretty common for girls to bang their weed dealers, coke dealers, etc. Not that all young women smoke weed and do coke but if they do and they buy the drugs on their own, then it's pretty likely that she traded drugs for sex. Definitely explains the numbers, especially since there's a good percentage of guys who are in prison for drug dealing. Just a thought (or just a thot).

What's amusing about this to me is that I instinctively knew this as a teenager. I remember going out with a girl from a lower class town and making up stories that I'd been "in juvie" and that my parents sent me to live with my aunt because I was such a handful.

It half-worked. I was able to go out with her several times and we "made out" and all, but eventually my real self shone through, and that's what ruined it.

I learned that if you're gonna try and fake being a bad boy, you can't just tell stories. You have the have the mannerisms and dialect. My mannerisms were OK. But I spoke too well. And without thinking first, I would chime in with opinions peppered with words and phrases no "bad boy" would ever actually use (like in this very sentence).

It ended up like Richie Cunningham trying to be The Fonz. So, my word of warning to any guy who wants to try this is that you probably need to hire a drama instructor to coach you on linguistics...and why you should never use words like "linguistics" on dates with girls with names like Tasha.

Relative to Social Pozness Zombies, CH's perspective is a bulwark of civilization - and that covers a multitude of sins. He is, however, in la la land when it comes to his shallow analysis of female hypergamy among young women of northern European heritage -- which is where all the sexual "combat" of "game" is really going on. I'd say his failure in this regard is unforgivable but for the fact that, among the popular artists posing as thought leaders of the Alt-Right, he still stands head and shoulders above the rest.

Again, there is no controlling for income or socioeconomic status here. Are we just seeing the effect of lower socioeconomic classes being more promiscuous? The prison population, white or otherwise, is drawn overwhelmingly from the lower strata of society. To verify that convicts are really getting more sex partners than non-convicts, I would need to see the convict numbers within a given socioeconomic class (say bottom 25%, which would probably be most convicts) compared to the means and medians for non-convicts in that socioeconomic class only.

NB I am not necessarily saying that convicts won't have higher sexual success than similarly situated non-convicts. That would certainly accord with what I have observed in human behavior. But I am not necessarily convinced of such solely by the particular data presented here.

The GSS doesn't ask about timeframes or durations of prison sentences, unfortunately. Keep in mind it asks respondents hundreds of questions. It's width is incredible--probably the single best source in the entire world so far as I'm aware--but it lacks much depth.

DoBA,

It takes a lot of effort not to see it. At one point or another, just about every man reading this has experienced a "what the hell is she doing with him?" moment. Or moments. Lots of moments. That 50 Shades of Grey is one of the bestselling books in the history of the world (~125 million copies--virtually all women) is the mic drop.

Jim,

The tendency for men to be of higher status than women in relationships among NW Euros is quite pronounced in the data, isn't it? High status women (lawyer cunts, doctors) and low status men (menial laborers) are the relative losers in the mating market.

Jig,

Fair point. I'll take a look at it if the sample size allows. Unfortunately this question was only asked in a single year so it's hard to drill down much further.

The numbers look right. I've seen this up close working as police and prison and probation. While inmates lie about everything, I can tell you how many home visits where the dirt bag has two women servicing him in a filthy house. Or some house wife is secretly writing or visiting an inmate. The letters would make Larry Flynt blush.

Race obviously has something to do with this but remove race and it looks the same. I don't know what percentage of the women would be what we'd call marriage material but they're not all complete wastes.

How many of the women are swapped from guy to guy is also anyone's guess. There used to be consequences for this kind of behavior. Absent those consequences we get this odd behavior.

I'm chiming back in to add to my earlier comment. "Jerks" and "Bad boys" are often contextual.

To the girl I went out with in high school (and wrote about in my last comment), I came off like some nerdy Woody Allen character. But when I got into college and met Jewish girls who dated guys who actually *were* like Woody Allen, I was the bad boy by comparison.

This led to some interesting situations: I began to see that people viewed me differently depending on their own background. The same went for Born Again Christian girls, although I encountered fewer of them. A Ramones (or Zappa) t-shirt might elicit an eye-roll from most girls, but to the "church group" girls you were positively WILD. One would come to my dorm room to sample the forbidden fruit of "sinful" music at odd hours. After I played her that third Zappa/Mothers album, she was so mortified she never came back. Man, I do I miss college!

I see no good reason to deny this study, since many have seen this trend with their own eyes. Women as a group are biologically hardwired to be attracted to more masculine men. Criminals are biologically more hyper-masculine than law-abiding men. Higher masculinity also goes along with higher sex drive in general, so criminals would be innately more sexually active regardless. Criminals are also more likely to have children from more than one woman even if they have been locked up for decades. So we have every reason to believe this study is (mostly) true.

Also, this also helps explain race differences in sexual behavior, with Blacks (both male and female) consistently being shown to be the most sexually active and promiscuous (East Asians the least, which explains why Japan is the virgin/beta male capital of the world) as well as the most genetically masculine and criminal-prone on average (East Asians again the least). There hasn't been a single replicated study that suggest otherwise:

"Women as a group are biologically hardwired to be attracted to more masculine men."

With the key being those women making subjective decisions as to who is more masculine to them.

"Criminals are biologically more hyper-masculine than law-abiding men."

Context matters.

In any social interaction, both the actor and the audience have a shared understanding of ideal masculine gender. Appropriate presentation of masculine display is expected based on the shared understanding (Polk, 1997:130). To present a positive masculine image, a man will rely on learned cultural definitions of masculinity. In the United States, this includes physical strength, aggressiveness, and visible proof of achievement (Messerschmidt, 1993; Gutmann, 1997). Masculine identity is consistent with being a tough and courageous person. According to Tedeschi and Felson (1994:197), the preponderance of research indicates that men take more risks than women and this risk-taking behavior is also a feature of masculinity. Whether the behavior that asserts masculinity is criminal or legal, the important aspect is that it is fully asserted. The use of criminal masculine accomplishment is especially likely when a man’s masculinity is called into question or threatened (Polk, 1997). Masculine gender is not what one is, but something that one does--something one does at all times. Therefore, if traditional, non-criminal resources are not available, alternative resources, even criminal resources, will be used to accomplish masculine gender (Messerschmidt, 1993).

"Gender" is not a learned behavior, it is biologically innate and heritable. Cultures all around the world can universally identify masculine and feminine traits with little disagreement. Gender Performance Theory is complete nonsense, what a person does IS what a person is because human behavior is mostly genetically caused:

"That sociology study you posted is a bunch of pseudoscience. In fact, all of sociology is blank-slatist pseudoscience."

What specific parts of this study do you object to? Why?

From the source you linked--"Gender feminists believe that gender is a social construct and all distinctions between men and women we see in life are simply culturally and socially constructed — biology plays no part."

I am of the mindset that nature AND nurture each play an integral role. As far as these newfangled gender descriptions, indeed, they are outside of the norm, with most people entirely dismissing those designations.

Remember, natural science consists of mental constructs, created with the objective of explaining sensory experience of our world. Human beings affix labels to make sense of our environment. For example, the California spotted owl is an animal, i.e. biological construct. The name of the creature is a human designation—strix occidentalis, i.e. human construct. That is, binomial nomenclature refers to a formal system, developed by people, to name species. The California owl was not a “California owl” until someone actually and specifically labeled it. Thus, while gender is biologically innate and heritable, with masculine and feminine traits readily identifiable, remember it was PEOPLE who developed that criteria and labeled that behavior accordingly. Again, natural science consists of mental constructs, created with the objective of explaining sensory experience of our world. Human beings affix labels to make sense of our environment. Race, biology, ethnicity--all are concepts created by man as an organizational tool to offer a consistency about the natural world in which they observe.

That was a nearly completely useless ramble. It doesn't change the essential thesis of observed effect (criminal men reporting more sex) and the proposed reason (criminal men seen as masculine, socially defined or otherwise).

As usual, the fake cuck advances the liberal view. At least use proper cuck views if you are to play one and suggest more church involvement.